BDL Week 2 - Antarctica Katabatic Beasts @ Cuba Smugglers

[RuskieTitan]

Barkley being healthy at the start of this week is the difference factor. Close game for me, but that light defensive front gives Antarctica an early lead that they maintain.

[pheltzbahr]

I think MD4L was on the right track with his base dime, but how about playing Honey Badger at SPY out of that?  Think that would have been more effective.  Not much meat on Da Beasts defensive gameplan to stop some serious weapons, I think Julio goes off.  Tough call, but I'm going Cuba because they paid attention to both sides of the ball.

[Ragnarok]

I get what people are saying about Cuba having 3 DL, but those are 3 damn good DL that will take all 5 of the still very not good AKB OL to handle.  That essentially makes it 8 defenders on 6 offensive players and I'll give that to Cuba.  

Plus, I really need to see more of a functional defensive gameplan from AKB.  Who is lining up where?  Who is covering whom?  How is man or zone coverage working?  The defensive gameplan was very lacking for me.

[WFLukic]

I've gone Cuba here. Weird game. I definitely get the logic of going super light against Lamar, but maybe not where you've got him next to Barkley in the BDL's most electric backfield (at least prior to Barkley's injury). With that said, I still think Cuba manages to limit the Antarctica offense well enough and Cuba's got too many options on offense to be slowed down.

Cuba 27 - 20 

 

[VigilantZombie]

So let me get this straight... thia week AKBs OL wasn't good enough to beat Cuba, but last weak it wiped the floor with Sacramento...how exactly?

[rackcs]

4 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

So let me get this straight... thia week AKBs OL wasn't good enough to beat Cuba, but last weak it wiped the floor with Sacramento...how exactly?

Not sure either. Even with Cuba's light DL I think they're going to have plenty of success here. Shame that Barkley went down as even with Antarctica's weak points like the OL I think they could've kept themselves in games just based on the dynamic backfield duo however.

[VigilantZombie]

3 minutes ago, rackcs said:

Not sure either. Even with Cuba's light DL I think they're going to have plenty of success here. Shame that Barkley went down as even with Antarctica's weak points like the OL I think they could've kept themselves in games just based on the dynamic backfield duo however.

While i do agree with that, that OL is so bad that...well put jt this way, we saw what happened when the Giants OL had to stop the Steelers defense. It's basically the same.concept. 

Sacramento shouldve won in week one and I'm sure if they had this one would be easier to deal with. But when things go "wrong" like that,  that's what creates rhe impression of bias voting

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by wwhickok

[rackcs]

35 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

While i do agree with that, that OL is so bad that...well put jt this way, we saw what happened when the Giants OL had to stop the Steelers defense. It's basically the same.concept. 

Sacramento shouldve won in week one and I'm sure if they had this one would be easier to deal with. But when things go "wrong" like that,  that's what creates rhe impression of bias voting

I think the matchup against Sacramento was close. I do not think anyone in BDL currently votes with bias. People disagree on player valuations, schematic decisions, lineups, everything. If everyone voted for the same teams week after week this league would be boring. There is no evidence that anyone is voting with bias whatsoever. There are plenty of results I disagree with but that's just BDL. I think it's irresponsible to accuse people of voting with bias with no evidence in a league that by its nature relies on unbiased voting to keep things fair. I agree that I think Sacramento should've won last week. They didn't and I see why and that's all there is. No offense to the twins but who in the BDL would be biased towards them and against Counselor? I highly, highly doubt bias factored into the voting.

[VigilantZombie]

4 minutes ago, rackcs said:

I think the matchup against Sacramento was close. I do not think anyone in BDL currently votes with bias. People disagree on player valuations, schematic decisions, lineups, everything. If everyone voted for the same teams week after week this league would be boring. There is no evidence that anyone is voting with bias whatsoever. There are plenty of results I disagree with but that's just BDL. I think it's irresponsible to accuse people of voting with bias with no evidence in a league that by its nature relies on unbiased voting to keep things fair. I agree that I think Sacramento should've won last week. They didn't and I see why and that's all there is. No offense to the twins but who in the BDL would be biased towards them and against Counselor? I highly, highly doubt bias factored into the voting.

I didn't just now, accuse anyone. I said it gives the impression of. Big difference. 

If we are referencing week 1; I'm calling B.S. it was VERY clear a specific individual hadn't paid attention to.the discussion thread, didn't read any gameplans, AND didn't look at rosters.. so if that's the case what were his votes based on?

More importantly though its less about bias and more about the apparent perception that there is a such thing as players that can't be stopped which is basically what won AKB the game last week.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by wwhickok

[MD4L]

1 minute ago, wwhickok said:

I didn't just now, accuse anyone. I said it gives the impression of. Big difference. 

If we are referencing week 1; I'm calling B.S. it was VERY clear a specific individual hadn't paid attention to.the discussion thread, didn't read any gameplans, AND didn't look at rosters.. so if that's the case what were his votes based on?

More importantly though its less about bias and more about the apparent perception that there is a such thing as players that can't be stopped which is basically what won AKB the game last week.

 

Nobody is unstoppable but there are points when guys become matchup proof in the sense that you can stop them and have great performances but they’ll still get numbers. For the Lamar Jackson example I used earlier in that game against Tennessee he accumulated over 500 total yards by himself. In the grand scheme of things there were drops, failed 4th down conversions, and a negative game script which resulted in a loss. Nonetheless your opinion of how Lamar played (most would probably say he played poorly) the statistics still showed that he accumulated massive amounts of production.
 

It’s a subjective concept ultimately but that’s the human error/perspective. We see it differently and that’s fine because it’s what makes the writeups and the competition process in itself worthwhile.

[rackcs]

1 minute ago, wwhickok said:

I didn't just now, accuse anyone. I said it gives the impression of. Big difference. 

If we are referencing week 1; I'm calling B.S. it was VERY clear a specific individual hadn't paid attention to.the discussion thread, didn't read any gameplans, AND didn't look at rosters.. so if that's the case what were his votes based on?

More importantly though its less about bias and more about the apparent perception that there is a such thing as players that can't be stopped which is basically what won AKB the game last week.

I disagree about their being the impression of. And I still thinking implying their is bias is as good as accusing people of it even if you're not naming names. As for your last point, we can see this week people obviously think they can be stopped. They just didn't think that they could be stopped last week based on their/Counselor's gameplans and lineups. I disagreed with that but others didn't. There's nothing wrong with that and I think your criticism is off base. The vote was 9-6 last week so it's not like it was a blow out. Some people felt one way and some another.

[VigilantZombie]

5 minutes ago, rackcs said:

I disagree about their being the impression of. And I still thinking implying their is bias is as good as accusing people of it even if you're not naming names. As for your last point, we can see this week people obviously think they can be stopped. They just didn't think that they could be stopped last week based on their/Counselor's gameplans and lineups. I disagreed with that but others didn't. There's nothing wrong with that and I think your criticism is off base. The vote was 9-6 last week so it's not like it was a blow out. Some people felt one way and some another.

I diagree with you. Why? Because the only thing I was criticism is rhe criticism of AKBs OL this week, that didn't seem to be rhe case last week when their OL was actually worse. Just doesn't make sense. 

I'm not right now, accusing anyone of being bias. Last week, we all know I did. And if that situation repeated itself, I'm going to tell you right now, I'd do it again. 

[Scoundrel]

1 hour ago, wwhickok said:

I didn't just now, accuse anyone. I said it gives the impression of. Big difference. 

If we are referencing week 1; I'm calling B.S. it was VERY clear a specific individual hadn't paid attention to.the discussion thread, didn't read any gameplans, AND didn't look at rosters.. so if that's the case what were his votes based on?

More importantly though its less about bias and more about the apparent perception that there is a such thing as players that can't be stopped which is basically what won AKB the game last week.

 

I am accusing many of them. A bunch of them are punks.